Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, R.POORNIMA
A.Perumalsamy – Appellant
Versus
State, Represented By, The Inspector Of Police, Thiruchuli Police Station, Virudhunagar District – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction of a.1 under section 302 of ipc. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments on lack of motive and evidence for a.1. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. evidence showing quarrel and loss of self-control. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. application of exception 1 of section 300 ipc. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. setting aside of section 302 conviction and substitution with section 304 part ii punishment. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is directed as against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.56 of 2018, dated 08.03.2023, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C.
3.On the complaint, the respondent registered the F.I.R in Crime No.194 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 307 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. After completion of the investigation, the respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court. The Trial Court framed charges as against A.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 294(b), 341 and 302 of I.P.C and also framed charges as against A.2 and A.3 for the offences punishab
The distinction between murder and culpable homicide hinges on the intention of the accused, with grave provocation leading to a conviction under Section 304 Part II instead of Section 302.
A conviction for culpable homicide requires establishing intent, which was lacking in this case, leading to a revised charge under Section 304 Part II IPC.
The court clarified that intention to kill is pivotal in distinguishing between murder and culpable homicide, confirming conviction under Section 304 Part II given absence of intent despite a fatal a....
The court distinguished culpable homicide from murder based on intentions and provocation, identifying a lack of mens rea for a murder conviction.
The court determined that acts committed in sudden provocation can result in a conviction for culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II instead of murder under Section 302 of IPC.
The court established that a lack of premeditation and intent to kill can lead to a conviction under Section 304 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC in cases of sudden provocation.
The court established that sudden provocation can reduce a murder charge to culpable homicide under Section 304 if the act occurs without premeditation and in the heat of passion.
The court established that a lack of premeditation and intention to kill in a sudden quarrel can lead to a conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC instead of Section 302 IPC.
Provocation leading to loss of self-control can reduce a murder charge to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part I IPC, requiring evaluation of intent and the nature of prior events.
Sustained provocation and heat of passion can reduce murder to culpable homicide, allowing for a lesser sentence under Section 304(II) IPC.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
